Loading...Last week, the final two reprints of my favorite “Posts of Christmas Past” reproduced an article I had written over a decade ago for Newsweek about the Christmas stories of the New Testament. I received a good bit of blow-back from the article itself, from various directions; that led me to write post explaining my views of a broader issue. Is there anything to appreciate from a narrative that “didn’t happen that way” or that we simply don’t believe? Here is what I wrote.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Finding Value in Writings You Don’t “Believe” (In response to my Newsweek article on Christmas)
January 2, 2025
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
29 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Here, here.
“You can’t please everyone. So, you gotta please yourself.”
Ricky Nelson. “Garden Party”. 1972.
Beautifully stated and I couldn’t agree more.
” These are books that meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts.”
Were these two categories (religious truths/ historical facts) incompatilble for the gospels writers ?
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile A NARRATIVE O THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ACOMPLISHED AMONG US just as those who from the beginning were EYEWITNESSSES and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
it seemed good to me also, having followed ALL THINGS CLOSELY for some time past, to write an ORDERLY ACCOUNT for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have CERTAINTY concerning the things you have been taught.”
(Luke 1: 1-3)
The writer of Luke begins his “proclamations of the good news” as if it were soemething very like what we now call “history”, he apparently made something like a research(” having followed all things closely for some time past”) “to compile a narrative…an orderly account”; he speaks about “eyewitnesses” and he wanted to deliver “certainty” about ” the things that have been accomplished among us”.
My sense is the author presented his work as a narrative of “things” that REALLY HAPPENED and
were at the same time “religious truths” and “historical facts” .
I regard the Gospels as testimonies of faith. To me, that’s not the same as modern biographies.
No work from antiquity is the same as a modern biography.
My point is that, at least in the case of Luke, the author presents his work as
a narrative of events that really happened in our earthly world, not just religious truths
or testimonies of faith.
I believe the majority of human beings have a hard time dealing with nuance. It’s likely a consequence of our social evolution. Whose tribe you belong to matters more than the actual truth. But I also believe that truth matters for human survival. So keep nuancing away!
Amen!
John Irving out here catching strays. But, seriously, these are all good points. Just because I don’t find any deep comfort in the scriptures doesn’t mean others can’t.
Hi Bart,
Just wondering what you think is a good (and, if possible, relatively recent) scholarly monograph in English (or translation) on the history of early biblical criticism, particularly of folks like Eichorn and his successors. I’m less interested in the “quest of the historical Jesus” than I am, say, the origin of the documentary hypothesis—not qua the contents of the hypothesis itself, but rather the claims that the bible was not written by Moses, is likely a redacted amalgamation of multiple independent sources, and contains distinct historical inaccuracies/contradictions. Thanks!
You can find some good options by searching for History of Hebrew Bible biblical interpretation on Amazon; you might espeically find Jon Levenson and John Hayes useful.
I agree 100%. If I understand, the Bible is literature loosely based on history (about as factual as modern-day “based on a true story” movies). It holds a special place in literature due to some wisdom therein and its effects on the world. Arguably the Buddha’s teachings are equal or greater in that respect. Where you get in trouble with many believers is this: “There are…lots of thoughtful believers…who agree with me on just about *everything* I think about the Bible…but who nonetheless find meaning in the Bible, when interpreted in an enlightened…way.” Concrete thinkers are not capable of “interpretation,” while others can’t cope emotionally with ambiguity. Personally where I have difficulty (besides the problem of natural evil and suffering) is not knowing exactly what it means to “believe in” Jesus. Can you simply say, “I believe” and that’s enough? Or must action align with belief and if so, what does that look like? I also don’t understand why the death of Jesus (God?) would affect my sinnership status. Couldn’t God find a way to do that without suffering and death? Any thoughts you have on those things? 🙂
These are important questions for certain. But they are more about personal faith than about the understanding of texts; that is, as a historian I would not be able to tell you whether it’s “enough” to believe or wehther you need to behave in certain ways. That’s a questoin for a theologian or a religious leader. As a historican I *can* tell you what, say, Paul thought about the matter, or Martin Luther, etc. In that vein I can say that *most* Christian teachers have always taught that if you truly believe in Christ is will affect how you live your life. And as to your last questoin, yup, it’s a huge issue. Most Christains have thought that for some (unexpressed, usually) reason God required atonement for sins; he couldn’t “just forgive.” For me that makes no sense, and is not what Jesus thought/taught. I’ll be discussing this in my next book.
I know you are mostly labeled a “New Testament Scholar” with an emphasis on history, but you did receive a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. For what it’s worth, I trust your theology more than most “theologians!” You said, “…*most* Christian teachers have always taught that if you truly believe in Christ it will affect how you live your life.” They might not be happy to hear that numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that no matter how morality is defined, religious people do not behave more morally than atheists, although they often say that they do (and may believe it). I guess nobody thinks they’re a sinner and if they did, they can always ask God for forgiveness so they don’t really need to worry about their behavior. That has always bugged me! As for the second topic on why God could not “just forgive,” I’m looking forward to your next book!
My first post ever !
I thought you to be the person you’re describing with the views you mention since I read your first book, and I have read most all of them.
I agree with what you say here and let me say I flew all the way to Greece to find out if the person that wrote the books was the same in real life.
Well done !
Well, I hope you found out. It’s an expensive flight!
I too am an agnostic who believes the Judeo-Christian god is one of thousands of gods created by human beings in various attempts to understand the mystery at the core of our very existence. At the macro level, we know the universe exists because we’re part of it but no one knows either the how or why the universe came into existence. Even the most sophisticated science about the Big Bang can’t explain why it happened or for what purpose of if there is a purpose. If the universe came into to being at some point, what was there previously? Could it come from nothing? If the universe is expanding what is it expanding into? The ancient Greeks symbols of Cosmos and Chaos spoke to this. Cosmos means order while chaos means, well, chaos, that which makes no sense. Human consciousness gives order to chaos. So which event is more meaningful: the Big Bang or the evolution of human consciousness. Without the Big Bang there would be nothing, including humans, but without human consciousness there would only be a cacophony of matter.
Thank you! Around age 12 in Sunday School, learning about Samson, I realized that he and Hercules had much in common — but I was told to believe one story was true because it was in the Bible, yet I could dismiss the other because it was a Greek/Roman myth. And when I understood human reproduction, I couldn’t accept a literal virgin birth. Soon, despite being the son of a Methodist minister, I couldn’t say the Apostles Creed. Yet I still found value in church communities. I ended up a Unitarian Universalist minister, where moral living and religious exploration were expected, but no dogma was required!
I was raised Southern Baptist and the issues began early with my quiet, respectful disagreements, some of which had them calling my mother to come retrieve me from Sunday School.
I found Bart Ehrman through the Great Courses. Decades of study and a long journey, even through atheism, led me back into the faith (Orthodoxy).
I once described to an Anglican priest, who was criticizing Bart and other scholars, as someone who helped lead me back into faith. The priest was stunned, because Bart was the enemy according to “them.”
I love critical and historical scholarship. The search for the historical Jesus, warts and all, is still sacred for me. I have been able to extract meaning from the texts, despite many imperfections. It is the story of something very human – humans wrestling with how to live. How to encounter that internal feeling or longing of something greater than themselves.
I have seen some very antagonistic scholars, but not Bart. I’ve seen Christians debate him that absolutely embarrassed me with their poor behavior. When Dr. Ehrman speaks of broader vision and obtaining meaning from the scriptures, I know what he means.
I have thought a lot about what constitutes “belief”. I find it a puzzle. We don’t necessarily believe only what we know to be true. We all believe lots of things we suppose to be true without real evidence. The same goes for “unbelief”.
When it comes to christianity what constitutes belief? Just saying you believe? Saying you believe and acting a certain way? Being deeply convinced something is true whether you act accordingly or not? Is it possible to act like a believer without being one? And a big question is do we chose what to believe or is belief something that happens to us at times before we even examine the evidence or in spite of the evidence? Faith is described in scripture as a gift from God. Does that mean we can’t be blamed if we don’t have it?
I no longer believe as I once did but I feel belief has left me, rather than me making a sudden conscious decision. The reasoning came after the change in belief I think.
Anyway as someone whose beliefs have greatly changed, what is your take on the concept of belief?
I think I already remarked on this? Belief means different things to diffferent “believers,” and even in the New Testament Paul’s view of “trusting Christ’s death to bring salvation” is different from Hebrews “accepting what can’t be provent” and 1 Timothy’s “list of things that need to be accepted as theologically true.”
I see belief as a couple things:
Belief is a feeling. I don’t believe in things that are true. I believe in things I believe are true. This is why evidenced based reasoning is such a powerful tool. It gets us closer to truth than some other forms of reasoning or just feelings alone.
Belief is a doctrinal requirement. I’m required to believe certain things to be a full participating member of the Church I belong to. So I believe them regardless of whether they are actually true. Fortunately, I don’t see anything in the Nicene Creed that is fully impossible; just some things that are unfalsifiable, some that are historically likely, and some that are historically unlikely. The possibility that the unlikely things actually didn’t happen no longer bothers me.
On the other hand my original conversion to christianity was a sudden decision driven I now think by my vulnerability at the time. (I believed on the basis of what was presented in one crusade meeting! Then I later learned over a long time what it was I actually believed!) I was an evangelical christian for many years before the belief left me.
Maybe it was simply the word truth that was offputting.
Very well said! Whether we believe in a higher being or not, an open and curious mind that seeks to learn and enhance the world around us, should be our human foundation.
“The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.” Proverbs 18:15
The power of human truth is found every day in story and fiction. Theatre, film, and all art have the power to change minds and lives. The story doesn’t have to be historically accurate to be real.
Tennessee Williams, The Glass Menagerie:
“But I am the opposite of a stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion.”
When I was in high school, I was attracted by the term RENAISSANCE MAN- & made that my objective. In fact, in undergrad, 1st semester, I happily took Renaissance & the Enlightenment, thinking I was French!
But then engrained in my consciousness was that Fundamental book publishing church I grew up. & to be an overcomer, only those they preached were mentioned in the Book of Revelation. So that is actually more discipline & constricted thinking.
Thanks, Dr Ehrman! I can’t figure what I believe in now as I live obediently & fully accept your writing.
I suppose that’s the only way to live!
As my Aunt says still in. We were right then, but we are better now!
What do you think about a Jungian approach to the Bible: that societies throughout the world and throughout history tell narratives where the characters embody the values of their cultures, and Christ is the embodiment of something like an amalgamation of the highest values of various cultures and that the Bible is the supreme archetype for the basis of western civilization’s moral and religious traditions. In that sense, regardless of one’s beliefs about the supernatural and despite problems with internal consistency one could argue that the Bible underlies the fabric of our society’s moral and cultural norms and systems…
As a historian I find that view a bit more mystical than I’m comfortable with. But I agree that even on a historical level the Bible underlies our morals and culture.